Military in combat vs. sex abuse

In response to all the media accounts of sexual abuse in the military and the government scrambling for ways to stop it: Am I the only one that can easily see a solution to the problem? Reflect back to the ’50s and ’60s, there wasn’t much of a problem then. But now, due to political correctness where women are stationed alongside men on ships, and especially submarines, it’s pretty understandable.

I believe that a lot of the so-called sexual abuse /sexual harassment is fabricated. The day of someone tapping someone on the shoulder or nudging one’s arm is gone. I believe that some people are using that as an excuse to yell “sexual abuse/harassment.”

I believe the solution to the problem is to segregate the men and women. If women wish to serve on ships, no problem, put them on an all-female-crew ship. Problem solved.

I believe the government has created the problem, but in the name of “political correctness” they don’t want to create any more [trouble]. — Eugene Newsome, Poway

Share your thoughts

In response to “Obama vows to halt military’s sexual abuse” (May 17): The major problem with halting military sexual abuse is not one of prosecuting cases but defining what constitutes sexual abuse between men and women? We know that sexual behavior is very subjective and that males and females define and view it differently. For instance, females often believe and joke about the same set of circumstances being viewed differently; a “cute” guy is considered flirting and being playful; for an “ugly” guy they considered it harassment and abuse. Good luck codifying the dynamics between the sexes. — Cliff Lindroth, San Diego